| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.224 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.380 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.790 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.801 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.722 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.200 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.933 | 2.716 |
The State Biotechnological University demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.846, reflecting a profile with significant strengths in research integrity alongside specific, high-priority areas for improvement. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and output in institutional journals, indicating a culture that values quality over quantity and avoids academic endogamy. However, these strengths are contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals and a high level of institutional self-citation, which pose direct reputational risks. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions in key thematic areas, including Mathematics (ranked 9th in Ukraine), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (11th), and Business, Management and Accounting (12th). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these findings have direct implications for any strategic vision centered on academic excellence and social responsibility. The identified risks, particularly those related to publication practices, could undermine the credibility of its recognized thematic strengths. By focusing strategic interventions on improving due diligence in publication channel selection and fostering broader external engagement, the State Biotechnological University can safeguard its academic reputation and ensure its research excellence is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.224, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is even more controlled than the national standard. The absence of risk signals suggests that the university's approach to academic collaboration is highly transparent and well-managed. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms that its practices are far from strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, reflecting a commendable level of operational integrity that aligns with and surpasses national norms.
With a Z-score of 0.380, the institution shows a higher risk for retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.056. Although both fall within a medium-risk category, the university's elevated score suggests it is more exposed to the underlying causes of retractions than its peers. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a comparatively high rate warns that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more frequently. This discrepancy points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting a need for management to qualitatively verify if this is due to recurring methodological weaknesses or other forms of malpractice.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 3.790, a significant risk level that is part of a critical national trend (country average: 4.357). While the university is a global outlier in this regard, its score is notably lower than the national average, suggesting it exercises more control over this practice than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but these high values warn of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. The institution's relative moderation of this widespread national issue is positive, yet the high absolute value still signals a risk that its academic influence could be perceived as inflated by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The university presents a Z-score of 3.801 in this indicator, a significant risk level that starkly contrasts with the medium-risk national average of 2.278. This finding indicates that the institution is not only participating in a problematic national trend but is amplifying it considerably. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific output is being placed in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to implement information literacy and training programs to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
With a Z-score of 0.722, the institution shows a medium risk for hyper-authorship, deviating moderately from the low-risk national profile (country average: -0.684). This suggests the university is more sensitive to factors that can lead to inflated author lists than its national counterparts. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are normal, such a pattern can indicate a dilution of individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants an internal review to distinguish between necessary, large-scale collaborations and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.200 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.159, with both indicating a low and healthy risk level. This demonstrates a normal and expected balance for an institution of its context and size. The data suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners for impact. This alignment confirms that its excellence metrics are largely derived from its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, signaling a sustainable and robust model for research development.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, performing even better than the already very low-risk national average of -1.115. This result signifies a total absence of risk signals related to hyperprolificacy. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to problematic authorship practices. The university's complete lack of such signals is a strong indicator of a healthy research culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
The university shows a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, which is a significant strength when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.154. This demonstrates a clear and effective isolation from a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the institution successfully mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and reinforcing its commitment to competitive, high-quality research dissemination.
With a Z-score of 0.933, the institution displays a medium risk for redundant publications, also known as 'salami slicing'. However, this must be interpreted within the context of a significant national-level risk (country average: 2.716). The university's performance indicates a relative containment of this issue, suggesting it operates with more control than the national average. While the presence of this signal alerts to the potential practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, the institution's ability to keep this trend well below the critical national level points to the existence of mechanisms that encourage the publication of more significant and coherent bodies of work.
